Gangster Goldy Brar's aide denied bail in Chandigarh businessman firing case
A Chandigarh court cites gravity of charges and possibility of accused fleeing; 20 of 23 protected witnesses already examined
A local court has dismissed the bail application of Kamalpreet Singh, an alleged aide of gangster Goldy Brar, arrested for firing outside the house of a businessman in Sector 5, Chandigarh.
The court said the charges against the accused were serious and he may flee if granted bail.
Police registered an FIR in the case on January 20, 2024, at Police Station North, Sector 3, Chandigarh, under Sections 384, 336, 506 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, relating to the firing of gunshots in close proximity to the residence of a businessman in Sector 5, Chandigarh.
Later, the Centre transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
During the course of the investigation, eight accused persons were arrested, who were allegedly involved in the firing of gunshots in close proximity to the residence of the businessman on the directions of gangster Satwinder Singh alias Goldy Brar.
The businessman was allegedly targeted because he had refused to heed the extortion demand raised by Goldy Brar, and the attack on his house was part of a larger conspiracy to target affluent businessmen for extortion by Brar and his associates.
On January 19, 2024, the businessman received an extortion threat from Brar himself, who stated that he had tried to convey a message to him through his associate, but since he had not answered the call, he had conveyed his message through gunshots at his house. He insisted that the businessman pay him an amount of Rs 2-3 crore.
The accused has been behind bars since February 4, 2024.
Out of 23 protected witnesses, 20 protected witnesses have already been examined. The accused had allegedly taken his co-accused to the targeted house in Sector 5 on his motorcycle on January 19, 2024.
After hearing the arguments, the court said that, in view of the nature and gravity of the charges, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction and possibility of the accused absconding or fleeing, his bail plea was dismissed.
